Talk:René Lévesque

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• René Lévesque BAnQ P243S1D865 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• René Lévesque, 1961.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Nationality (again)

There is disagreement about whether Levesque should be described as a Quebecois or Canadian politician.

AFAIK, there is no relevant policy or guideline.

My suggest is that he be called a Quebec politician. TFD (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Which is how I phrased it: Canadian in the lead sentence, based on citizenship, then "Québécois politician" in the next sentence, stating he was the first Québécois politician to propose separation from Canada. I think that covers both aspects: Canadian nationality, and Québécois political position, to explain as quickly as possible the context for the reader. However, that approach has been reverted. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

He was a Canadian politician. PS - I've asked for input at WP:CANADA, concerning this content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We would not say that John A. Macdonald was a British politician, although he was born in the UK and never took out Canadian citizenship. What's the difference?

I suggested Quebec rather than Quebecois. He only ran for office in Quebec. TFD (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Canadian citizenship wasn't a widespread concept until a generation or more after Macdonald died.

Levesque was a Canadian citizen, a Québécois (ethnic group) politician from Québec. The most neutral would be to call him a Canadian politician, then "first Québec premier", and finally Québécois, I think. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact, Canadian citizenship became a widespread concept after the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946, which bestowed citizenship on all British subjects resident in Canada as of 1 Jan 1947. But even then, it provided no rights. Instead, Parliament progressively removed the rights of British subjects who did not happen to be Canadian citizens.

So Levesque became a Canadian citizen when he was 25. But why should this article explain Canadian nationality law? There's an article for that. TFD (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: We don't use the accent in either the Quebec or Premier of Quebec page titles. So, let's not do so here. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll use accents in my own comments; I don't agree with the lack of them on Wikipedia but I'll respect the MOS in articles. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

To clarify. I was pointing out we shouldn't use the 'accents' on the page, in relation to the province & the premier's office :) GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The MacDonald example isn't really comparable. At the time people would be referred to as Canadians, even though in law they would have been British subjects (who happen to live in Canada). As we write for an international audience, we should also call René Lévesque a Canadian politician. I think the lede is very well written in the circumstances. While it currently calls him a "Canadian politician", immediately afterwards refers to his role in Quebec politics, in seeking "political independence of Quebec" and "as an ardent defender of Quebec sovereignty". The lede is clear. We need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not written for just for Quebec, or even Canadian audiences, but for international ones. We should put readers understanding first, not internal debates or whether "René Lévesque" considered himself Canadian. He was a politician in a Canadian province, in fact, he was the leader of that Canadian province. The first sentence helps an international reader place him and understand, and it does not confuse because the second and third sentences make his Quebecois and sovereigntist roles very clear. We should just leave the lede alone.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:, you're invited to the discussion taking place. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

PS also pinging @The Four Deuces:, @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:, @G. Timothy Walton: & @Darryl Kerrigan:, who've already given some input. Do we need an RFC for this? or was there already one held. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It's more precise to call him a Quebec politician. Maybe we could parenthesize after the statement, "Quebec is part of Canada! My Canada includes Quebec!" Because the only reason for calling him Canadian is to support one side of the Canada-Quebec debate. TFD (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

He was a Canadian politician & that's what should be in the intro. We use "Canadian" politician in the intros of other Quebec separatist. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, GoodDay. It seems to me that your insistence that He was a Canadian politician - as if it would not be equally accurate and well-sourced to say that he was a Quebec politician, or a Québecois politician, or a French Canadian politician - rather assumes the thing to be demonstrated in this discussion.

So I don't have time right now to look into the edit history as I should, but I strongly suspect that this article has received more editorial attention over time than the other premier bios you list below and that therefore the prior consensus made here may have a higher WP:CONLEVEL than that of those other articles - I haven't evaluated the consensus at those other articles in terms of number of participants and policy considerations - nor am I as familiar with the sourcing of those articles as I am with the sources for this one - and those strike me as the relevant factors.

Anyway, the main point I want to make here is to circumsctibe the (strongly held) beliefs of certain editors, who seem convinced of the Westphalian settlement as a social ontology (that is, a "thing that really exists"). In spite of what some of these editors may believe, what MOS:ETHNICITY actually says is not that legal nationality must always be stated in the lede, but rather that it is the context for the notability of the subject that is the deciding factor. It seems obvious to me what the relevant context is, for this article. Newimpartial (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your arguments. Levesque was a Canadian politician & we should be mentioning that fact, in the intro. The province wasn't an independent country, when he was premier. Furthermore, if a majority of editors side with using "Canadian politician", then that's what should be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Lévesque was notable on the national stage, perhaps moreso than any other premier of his time; limiting his notability to the provincial level is very much taking a side in the sovereignty debate. This is not a case of some footnote premier like Peter Veniot, whose notability is that he was the first Acadian premier of New Brunswick. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe the sources support me in saying that Levesque was notable on the national stage precisely as a Quebec and a Québecois politician. This shouldn't be a matter of endorsing (or rallying against) a political project; it should be a matter of following the framing that the best sources - including the best non-English language sources - use. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll give this discussion another week. If it's still in progress? I'll open an RFC on this matter. The question will be of two options - Should we use "Canadian politician" or "Quebecois politician" (don't worry, I'll include the accents, on the latter;), in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You have not provided any policy based reasons for your position.

John A. Macdonald was born in Scotland, was always a British subject, was knighted by the Queen of the UK and his widow was appointed to the House of Lords in recognition of his service. He was influential in promoting the equality of dominions in the Empire. So why isn't he a British politician? TFD (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Bearcat (see below) explains it quite well. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Inviting @TheCelebrinator: to the discussion, as you've also edited this page, recently. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, whether from Quebec or Toronto or Victoria, B.C. Regardless of Lévesque's own views on his nationality, he was born a Canadian (outside Quebec, incidentally), lived a Canadian and died a Canadian. That's the only thing that should matter. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It is POV interventions like this that cast doubt on this whole consensus-building exercise, IMO. Wikipedia content is supposed to be based on the highest-quality reliable sources, not the strongly held opinions of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not my POV to assert that Lévesque was a lifelong Canadian citizen and, indeed, only a citizen of that country. Nobody disputes that fact. Should we start referring to Doug Ford as an Ontarian politician or David Eby a British Columbian politician? .

As to my own personal opinion, as a Quebecer, it is perfectly possible to be both a good Quebecer and a good Canadian, but personal opinion aside, Lévesque's nationality, or citizenship, was Canadian from the beginning to the end of his life. That is not opinion, that is fact. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

But Wikipedia policy doesn’t support the inclusion of Westphalian citizenship (or residency) regardless of the context. Instead, it mandates that articles follow the reliable sources as they depict the nation or region relevant to a person's notability.

A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian is an opinion strongly held and expressed with a certain rhetorical flourish, but decidedly a POV intervention rather than being based on either WP policy or source analysis. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You don't think Mr. Lévesque was a lifelong Canadian citizen? TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, of course he was. But the reliable sources do not make this a defining characteristic of his notability, which is much more strongly tied to his being a political leader, and leader of a political movement in Quebec. His notability was defined in relation to Quebec, not to Canada. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Mr. Lévesque's notability is due to his being a premier or leader of a Canadian province. There are plenty of other political leaders who've made their career in more local politics like Jean Drapeau of Montreal or Danielle Smith of Alberta, but they all represent government institutions of Canada. And they're Canadian, that's why they're listed as such on Wikipedia.

Mr. Lévesque's signature political proposal was for Quebec to separate from Canada, implying that a) Quebec and Mr. Lévesque were already Canadian and b) it was Quebec's relation with Canada that was so important to him, so I think this makes his notability very much in relation with that country. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact, Levesque first achieved notability as a war correspondent for the U.S. Army and later as a French language correspondent and finally for hosting a TV show in Quebec, before becoming an MNA and provincial cabinet minister before becoming premier 16 years later. But he is most notable for leading the Quebec separatist movement. TFD (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure.

Mr. Lévesque (the accent is part of the name) was a public figure for years before officially becoming premier of Quebec, but that still remains his main claim to fame, like you said yourself. A bit like Mr. Trump in the States. I don't see how you can deny that. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@TheCelebrinator: If you wish to, your input is welcomed in the related RFC, on this talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, already done. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Other Quebec premier bios, who were separatists

This is a list of the Quebec premiers from the Parti Quebecois

• Pierre Marc Johnson (uses "Canadian")
• Jacques Parizeau (uses "Canadian")
• Lucien Bouchard (uses "French Canadian")
• Bernard Landry (uses "Canadian")
• Pauline Marois (uses "Canadian")
  

GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Bouchard achieved fame as a federal politician before becoming premier, which might explain the different description. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

French Wikipedia refers to all of them as politiques québécoise. Since articles are aimed at an international audience, this seems to be the neutral way of describing them.

That's also the way English Canadians would describe them. Ontarians for example would refer to Rachel Notley and Danielle Smith as Alberta politicians, not Canadian politicians. TFD (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get such provincial & territorial descriptions adopted to all the former & current premiers bios. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We're writing for an international audience here, not for a Canadian audience, so the fact that Canadians would refer to political figures at the provincial government level as "Province" politicians rather than "Canadian" politicians is irrelevant. Wikipedia's readership, for example, includes a significant number of people who probably couldn't name a Canadian province without a cheat sheet even with a gun to their head — so even if a person is in provincial politics rather than federal politics, the introduction still has to describe them as "Canadian" first, and then delve into the provincial nature of their notability second, because not all of our readership knows Canada's provinces well enough to know what "Quebec politician" or an "Alberta politician" would even mean if the word "Canadian" were excised from the introduction entirely.

That's also the same way we handle the nationality of a French Quebecer, separatist or otherwise: regardless of where the person stands on whether Quebec should be part of Canada or not, Quebec is part of Canada as things currently stand, so it's entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia to pretend that québécois and Canadian are mutually exclusive nationalities that cancel each other out, such that a person can only be one or the other and not both. So the appropriate and neutral way to handle it is to ensure that both labels, "Canadian" and "Quebec", are used, and neither their personal opinions on Quebec sovereignty, nor their status as provincial-level rather than federal-level politicians, have anything to do with it.

And what his French article does is also not indicative of international standards either — the French Wikipedia is much more heavily dominated by editors with strong Quebec sovereignty leanings, so what they do there isn't a useful gauge to what British people, Australians, Germans, Italians, Spaniards or Poles would say. If you want to measure international "standards", you need to check what's done in other languages besides English or French — and across the board, every other interlang I just checked does the same thing as what's done here: describing him as Canadian, and then delving into the complexities of the matter once the basic context has been established.

Again, we're not writing this article for the benefit of Quebec sovereignists, we're writing this article for the benefit of readers who may not necessarily even know what Quebec is in the first place — so for a francophone Quebecer both levels, Canada and Quebec, have to be named in the introduction to ensure that the reader has the necessary context, and the question of whether the article subject is a federalist or a sovereignist is irrelevant. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, I did not recommend that we use provincial and territorial descriptions in the info-boxes of all Canadian politicians. Please not that "Misrepresentation of other people" comes under Behavior that is unacceptable. Not only does it require a response from me, but it derails the discussion.

My point about the French Wikipedia is that both Canada and Quebec politician are accurate, but other considerations apply. While identity may be presented as nationality, it can also be presented as ethnicity or region.

I don't see any reliable sources describing Levesque as a "Canadian politician."

Bearcat, while we are not writing for the benefit of Quebec sovereigntists, we aren't writing for the benefit of Canadian federalists either. We don't need to lecture readers that Quebec is part of Canada. And I sincerely doubt that anyone looking for this article cannot name at least one Canadian province. Are they going to say to themselves, "I've heard a lot about Rene Levesque and want to read his Wikipedia article. No idea what province he is from though." TFD (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bearcat. It is quite an assumption that every reader that comes across this page is going to have a good understanding of Canadian federalism and jurisdictions. Outside of the project there are many ways his name could come up. On Wikipedia, his name is mentioned in over 1000 articles many which would not be read only by such an audience. These articles include articles writen about tall buildings (some of which are on a street named after him), Summits of the Americas (which he attended), and Olympic Games (which he attended). As I have said above, there is nothing wrong with the lede. It is quite balanced and immediately after noting that he was a "Canadian politician" it gives a lot of context about his roles in Quebec politics and the sovereignty movement.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

How many of those 1,000 articles do not mention Quebec? My guess is none. TFD (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

TFD, difficult as it may be for you to believe, some of our readers genuinely don't know that Quebec is part of Canada, and won't know what a "Quebec politician" is if we excise the word "Canadian" from the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Bearcat, I'm afraid your argument doesn't seem to have a string basis in enwiki policy. I am aware that some editors believe that - with the notable exception of UK citizens - Westphalian citizenship should be prominently included in all 20th and 21st century biogrphies. However, that opinion doesn't reflect what the relevant guideline - MOS:ETHNICITY - actually proposes that we should do, nor does it represent the consensus of Wikipedia editors. By consensus, we are supposed to follow the context of Notability presented in WP:HQRS, rather than a cookie-cutter approach rooted in passport nationality.

To be clear, I have nothing against mentioning Canada in the lead paragraph, but "Canadian politician" just isn't how Levesque is described in reliable sources, and it isn't our job as Wikipedia editors to make that so. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Assuming you're going to persist in pushing "Quebecois politician", over "Canadian politician" & thus against a growing consensus for the reverse. I'll have to consider opening an RFC on the matter at WP:CANADA. If that's what it will take to put an end to this content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that referring to my reinstatement of policy-backed long-term stable lead content as pushing is, ahem, not a good look for you. But if you can refrain from insulting me this time around I suppose I should count my blessings... Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverting multiple editors creates tension. As mentioned earlier, if this discussion is still ongoing, I'll be opening an RFC at WP:CANADA. Particularly, now that I've discovered more the one Canadian politician bio is falling under the same content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

My reading of MOS:ETHNICITY would suggest that "Canadian" should be used. René Lévesque who was born in New Brunswick (Canada), lived most of his life in Canada, and died in Quebec (Canada), is comparable to the Daniel Boone example in the manual as "someone who continued to reside in their country of origin". In the Boone article, he is noted as an "American pioneer". Similarly, when discussing the example of Isaac Asimov the manual warns against adding "ethnicity ("Jewish-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American")... [as] These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance." The current lede for this article does exactly that: notes Lévesque was a "Canadian politician" followed by his role as "premier of Quebec", as a Québécois political leader, and with Quebec independence and sovereignty movements. The problem with looking only at WP:RS is that they are overwhelmingly Canadian, and as such assume knowledge of Canadian federalism etc., when as we have already discussed above, we write for an international audience, not a Canadian one (unlike most RS covering Lévesque).-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I would point out also that Levesque became a Canadian citizen at the age of 25, whereas he became a resident of Quebec shortly after birth. R.B. Bennett is referred to as a "Canadian politician," although he became a Canadian citizen after his Canadian political career was over and he was living in the UK as a member of the House of Lords.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier is referred to as a "Canadian lawyer" etc. although he had British nationality and Canada did not have international recognition until after his death.

This seems like a pro-Canada bias. British subjects living in the British dominion of Canada are Canadians while people living in the Canadian province of Quebec are Canadians, regardless of what their actual nationality was. TFD (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Lévesque was "Canadian" since his birth (in New Brunswick), notwithstanding the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946 only coming into force in 1946. As discussed above, notwithstanding the fact that "in law" residents of Canada were British subjects (that happened to live under Canadian jurisdiction) there was an understanding that they were "Canadians" long before the Act changed the legality around this. This is similar to the Daniel Boone example mentioned above and in MOS:ETHNICITY. Despite being a "British subject" at his birth in the Province of Pennsylvania, British America, we refer to Boone as an "American pioneer" because he is "someone who continued to reside in their country of origin". I could understand your position on Lévesque, if the rest of the first sentence, and then the second, third and fourth sentences did not make clear his Quebec connections, but there is no shortage of digital ink in this article prominently displaying his Quebec links. This discussion doesn't really seem like one focused on putting readers first, which should be our goal here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The two examples are cases where we can refer to someone by their region of residence instead of their nationality. Thank you! I have been saying that all along and of course it is allowed per MOS.

However, you then reject your own argument and claim that we cannot refer to Levesque as a Quebec politician because after the Canadian citizenship act came into force on Jan. 1, 1947, he became a Canadian national.

Per your reference to the essay put readers first, do you really think that people who want to know more about Levesque who had never heard of Quebec? It's the same with Robbie Burns - you think there are a lot of people familiar with his poetry who have never heard of Scotland? TFD (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I would not put too much stock in the argument that Lévesque was not a Canadian citizen from birth due it only becoming a separate concept from being a British subject in 1947. It was commonly understood at the time that all residents of Canada (including pre-Confederation Canada) were Canadian. People like Macdonald, Laurier, King, Borden, LaFontaine, Cartier were all understood to be Canadian even back then.

.

If they were all rather British instead of Canadian, then I guess Washington and Jefferson should have their nationality changed from American to British as, obviously, the concept of American nationality did not exist until much later in their lives. TheCelebrinator (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. If we follow your reasoning with Levesque, then we would call Macdonald Canadian even though he was a British subject because his area of interest was Canada. Similarly, we refer to American revolutionaries as American because that was where they operated. In fact, Loyalists, who never became of U.S. citizens and did not renounce their British nationality, were still referred to as Americans until after the war of 1812. TFD (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So then why wouldn't Lévesque be a Canadian when he lived in... Canada? And, unlike Macdonald, actually became a Canadian citizen throughout his lifetime? TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And precisely what high-quality reliable sources claim that Quebecers aren't Canadians? Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Please avoid strawman arguments that are disruptive. TFD (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a legitimate question, given some of the decidedly partisan arguments put forth under pretense of neutrality by more than one editor. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not this question is disruptive, it is undeniably silly.

If what you mean is passport citizenship, Bearcat, there are none - just as there are no HQRS stating that people born in Puerto Rico are not U.S. citizens. But yet, the Wikipedia nationality of such people is "Puerto Rican", not "American".

If what you mean is, essentially, "don't all Quebecers share a national identity as Canadians" then the HQRS to disprove this are quite readily at hand. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is a dependent state and in no way an appropriate example for this discussion. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Puerto Rico is a dependent territory. However, the citizenship/nationality of Puerto Ricans is U.S. in precisely the same sense that the citizenship/nationality of Scots is UK or the citizenship/nationality of Quebecers is Canada. I haven't seen a compelling argument why the Quebec case differs from the other two: all three are minority nationalities within a larger, Westphalian state. And the argument that FIFA recognizes the first two and not the third seems quite absurd to me; I mean, the Olympics don't recognize Scotland, but les Jeux de la Francophonie do recognize Québec apart from Canada - so let's not rely on sporting federations for definitions. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

But it's not, and you're trying to compare two very different things to Quebec/Canada. Scotland is recognized by the UK government as a country. A country within a country, but still a country. That has legal status, unlike the symbolic motion passed by Parliament in 2006. Furthermore, Wikipedia explicitly says that both British and English/Scottish, etc. nationalities are acceptable nationality descriptors to use for UK citizens. There is no such policy or even conventional use for Quebecers. You're trying to invent a new precedent here.

Puerto Ricans similarly are pretty consistently described as Puerto Rican here on Wikipedia. Whether it's Roberto Clemente or Bad Bunny or Pedro Morales, they're all listed as Puerto Rican. That has precedent and is standard policy here on Wikipedia.

No such precedent exists for Quebecers. With the exception of a few politically charged cases, like this one, Quebecers are by and large referred to as Canadians here on Wikipedia. There are no two Canadas, one where you're a Canadian and another where you're a Quebecer. Legally, there is no Quebec nation to speak of. It is purely a sociological concept, so to try and turn it into some kind of nationality, along the lines of American, Chinese, German, etc., is preposterous. Even Catalans are usually referred to here as Spaniards (like with Pep Guardiola).

It's important to put aside your own political beliefs and try to follow established precedent here on Wikipedia, not invent your own. TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to invent a new precedent here. For one thing, the stable lead here has said Quebecois for a number of years, so it is those advocating a change who are trying to break with the precedent of prior consensus.

For another, MOS:ETHNICITY reads, on the parallel case of Spain, A 2018 RfC on Spanish regional identity in the lead resulted in consensus to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most.

It seems obvious to me that, this article should continue to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most - the relevant Wikipedia precedent - and should not be moved by editors who arrive here to enact their POV insistence that "Québec is not a nation/nationality". Whether it is or is not is supposed to be settled according to sources rather than strongly-held opinions of editors, but what I see here from those insisting on "Canadian" is overwhelmingly the latter, supported by original arguments from legislation and court decisions. This is not how consensus is supposed to be determined on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Labeling editors in this pre-RFC discussion who disagree with you, as PoV or original research pushers, isn't going to be accepted well by those editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

And what do you think of the fact that virtually every other Quebecer is listed as Canadian? That even Lévesque's fellow PQ premiers are described as Canadian? It seems to me like you're the one trying to invent a new precedent.

We are simply trying to follow established precedent elsewhere found on Wikipedia when it comes to Quebecers and their nationality. Far from being original, I think it is you who is trying to come up with some rather far-fetched theories about how the regional identity should usurp the national one (read: nationality). Lévesque's article stands as the only one, I think, to use Québécois instead of Canadian. Even Jacques Parizeau's lists him as a Canadian.

Also, not that this is important to the issue at hand, I have never stated that there is no such thing as a Quebec nation. Sociologically, if we Quebecers or French-speaking Canadians want to define ourselves as different, as a nation in the classical sense of the word, then that's OK, I'm not opposed to that. There's already an Inuit nation, a Cree nation, a Mohawk nation, etc., but when someone tries to turn that sociological definition into some kind of legal nationality, then obviously that's problematic, because it doesn't exist. TheCelebrinator (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not a US state, but rather a US unincorporated territory. Thus a different entity. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

WikiProjects notified

Along with WP:CANADA, all the provincial WikiProjects & the WikiProject for the territories, have been notified of this ongoing discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC: How should René Lévesque be described in the lead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How should René Lévesque be described in the lead?

• A) Canadian politician
  or
• B) Québécois politician

GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• A - As he was a Canadian & having looked over the bios of some other provincial & territorial premiers. They use "Canadian politician" in their leads, including the leads of Quebec premiers from the PQ -
  Pierre Marc Johnson (Canadian lawyer, physician and politician),
  Jacques Parizeau (Canadian politician),
  Bernard Landry (Canadian politician),
  Pauline Marois (Canadian politician).
  Also, Lucien Bouchard uses (French Canadian lawyer, diplomat and retired politician). GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the above vote and reasoning. Dobblesteintalk 17:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• B - the governing guideline, MOS:ETHNICITY, says that the lead should be guided by the context of notability relayed by the highest quality reliable sources. As I understand the sourcing, the context they support is "Québecois". The existence of other biographies that may or may not correspond to the sourcing is essentially an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS situation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• A G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• A - "Québécois" is typically used to refer to a specific group of people, the French-speaking descendants of French settlers. Per MOS:ETHNICITY: Ethnicity … should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Levesque's notability is not tied to his membership in this group (his election as premier was not notable for being the first time the province was lead by a Québécois) so putting this right in the lead is not relevant or appropriate. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• A but with a compromise - include both. "René Lévesque was a Canadian politician, journalist and Québécois nationalist who served as the 23rd premier of Quebec..." or something to the effect.--unsigned comment by WildComet
• A for all the reasons stated in the previous discussion above. In summary, he was a Canadian. As we write for an international audience, we should state that first. There is also no need to identify him as a Québécois in the first part of the first sentence, because immediately afterwards we already note that he was premier of Quebec, then a Québécois political leader, then involved in Quebec independence and sovereignty, and finally that he founded the Parti Québécois. All of this in four sentences of the lede. How many times do we have to say Quebec or Québécois in the lede to make some people happy?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• A For reasons already stated. Kind regards, --✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 22:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• A As Darryl Kerrigan points out, we already make extensive mentions of his Quebec connections in the lead. I think it does a disservice to non-Canadian readers to hide the fact that he was Canadian. Meters (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• A don't presume everyone knows Quebec is in Canada and that someone from Quebec is Canadian. We should be clear and not presume knowledge like that on the reader. The fact he was indeed a Canadian politician isn't disputed. Canterbury Tail talk 17:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• A. This is a no brainer. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
• A. As I've stated elsewhere, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, whether from Quebec or Toronto or Victoria, B.C. Regardless of Lévesque's own views on his nationality, he was born a Canadian (outside Quebec, incidentally), lived a Canadian and died a Canadian. That's the only thing that should matter. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.--unsigned comment by TheCelebrinator
• A - Lead could read as "[René Lévesque] was a Canadian politician and journalist who served as the 23rd premier of Quebec from 1976 to 1985. He was the first Québécois political leader since [...]" which mentions he is Québécois immediately. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• C First off, I think some of the above commenters aren't fully aware of the, uh, political relationship between Quebec and Canada.

Anyways, what is option C? I vote for 'all of the above': René Lévesque was a Québecois Canadian politician... Cremastra (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it is necessary to refer to him as both (Canadian and Québecois) in that way? Even if, as is currently the case, the rest of the first sentence notes that he was the "23rd premier of Quebec" and the second sentence of the lede notes that he was a "Québécois political leader"? I understand this RfC to only be about the first half of the first sentence in the lede as that was what was been edit warred about. I am not sure your suggestion that commenters are unaware of Quebec's political situation is correct, it just seems to me that many are just happy with the balance present in this version of the lede. Or this one.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Note - On December 8, 2023, a notice was placed on the Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board concerning this RfC.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Note - On December 11, 2023, a notice was placed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government concerning this RfC.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• B per Newimpartial. Two weeks ago I commented below that we should follow sources rather than personal opinions or what other biographies do, and nearly every comment since then has been a personal opinion or exploring what other biographies do. Lévesque was Québécois (whether that's an ethnicity or a nationality or a demographic is not really relevant) and sources describe him as such per Newimpartial's argument; writing for an international audience is irrelevant because readers are capable of clicking on either Quebec or Québécois to learn the relevant context without us going out of our way to spoon feed it to them. Or in other words: nobody is Québécois and not Canadian. Furthermore he is known primarily for his nearly lifelong advocacy for Quebec sovereignty, and insisting that he must be described as Canadian first is a POV slap in the face to the man's legacy, and a black mark on Wikipedia's reputation as a source of neutral information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect many will disagree with you. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  That happens. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• A I looked through List of premiers of Quebec by time in office and not once was the premier simply described as Québécois in the lead. It was Canadian, French-Canadian, or no descriptor. Besides that, I agree with User:Kawnhr's points. Masterhatch (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Both A and B and it should be that way for all Quebecois figures, particularly separatists like Levesque. There have even been attempts to enshrine in the written constitution that quebec is a distinct society and that Quebec is a nation within Canada. I don't think people are considering the full picture here. Look at Scotland, probably the closest contemporary analogue for Quebec, where politicians are described as being "Scottish" despite Scotland being a mere devolved district of the unitary Britain and not even a federal constituent (see for example Nicola Sturgeon). Call him a Quebecois Canadian like Cremastra said. JM (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023: you may want to bring that argument to the talkpage of WP:CANADA, if you're proposing to include that for all politicians from the province. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Both A and B — Sadko (words are wind) 14:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Why should we use both in the first part of the first sentence? The rest of the first sentence already notes that he was the "23rd premier of Quebec" and the second sentence of the lede notes that he was a "Québécois political leader". There are numerous mentions of his Quebec and Québécois connections which will remain regardless.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sadko: Check over the lead. We're merely asking if "Quebecois politician" should be replaced with "Canadian politician" GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I did and I'm not in favor. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 17:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

So @Sadko:... you're saying use "Canadian and Quebecois politician..."? GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, using only one option is too limiting in all sorts of way. — Sadko (words are wind) 06:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is. Maybe we should be revisiting whole lede as opposed to just the first part of the first sentence, as those arguing for both seem to be disregarding the other extensive mentions of Quebec and Québécois in the lede, and the current absence of any mention of Canada/Canadian. If the only mention of Canada is going to be prefaced with a reference to ethnicity contrary to MOS:ETHNICITY, the other mentions seem unnecessary and/or undue in the circumstances. Perhaps a complete rewrite of the lede is needed then.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• A He's a Canadian politician who was premier of Quebec. Meters (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that he was actually a Federal politician for aa significant period before he became a provincial politician. Meters (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• A & B - (Brought here from RFC/A) I do think that including both has its merits as it covers all the bases, as opposed to using just one option is limiting and the purpose of the lead is to give a summary of the notability and weight from the body. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Both A & B, also called Option C. The describer "Québecois Canadian politician" given by Cremastra. It will not right proper to call him only Canadian since he was a separatist and it is almost like taking a side in a nation debate by in manner rejecting the nation he marked himself with. Both will cover it all since he was within the Canadian state as well, obviously. Braxmate (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• A but I do think A & B is a good solution here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I've opened this RFC, due to ongoing discussion on the topic & back-and-forth reverting, concerning the topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Kawnhr: in 21st-Century French (and English), "Québecois" is primarily used in refernece to the residents of Quebec, not a specific ethnic group. And what MOS:ETHNICITY actually mandates is to pay attention to the context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, The sources seem to suggest that Quebec not Canada, is most relevant to the subject's notability, which is what the guideline mandates. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC) moved, and addressee added Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  It may be used that way in French, but this is the English Wikipedia, and English has a long history of applying its own connotations to the words it borrows. I generally see "Quebecois" used to mean an ethnic group, and this meaning was part of the controversy behind the Québécois nation motion. I will grant that it's a term of several meanings… but I will also say that that ambiguity is a reason it should be avoided.

  As for sources suggesting that his notability is tied to Quebec specifically rather than Canada more generally: sure, but this is true of any regional politician. For example, articles about Rob Ford generally identified him as a "Toronto" mayor or politician — the NYT's obituary doesn't even mention "Canada" once! — but I don't think anybody would argue that we should thus identify him foremost as a Torontonian. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, we wouldn't have Ford's bio lead as "Torontonian politician" or (another example) NS Premier Tim Houston as "Nova Scotian politician". GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• The compromise suggested by WildComet might be a good idea. ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am not necessarily opposed to this, but it is worth asking why the balance the lede previously struck isn't enough. In the lede we note he was premier of Quebec, a Québécois political leader, involved in Quebec independence and sovereignty, and finally that he founded the Parti Québécois. What does calling him a "Québécois nationalist" add that isn't already there? If we adopt the "compromise" are we then going to reduce some of the other mentions of his Quebec bonafides?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• @WildComet: The second sentence reads - "He was the first Québécois political leader...". This seems to cover the 'compromise' concerns. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• If describing Levesque as "Canadian" is contentious, I would rather we follow the Nicolaus Copernicus example and omit the nationality entirely. Because I think calling him a "Quebec(ois) politician" will result in editors taking that as reason to use a sub-national identity for other politicians — and it wouldn't be hard to find supporting evidence to say that, say, Danielle Smith identifies herself as "Albertan" more frequently, or that she's described that way in coverage, etc despite a clear difference in reason. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What's the source for the statement that Québécois refers to the residents of Quebec regardless of ethnicity? I note that Québécois people says the opposite: Québécois ... is a word used primarily to refer to a French-speaking inhabitant of the Canadian province of Quebec." 184.146.164.157 (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That's the problem I have with Québécois: when we call him a politician we should refer to the region in which he operated, not his ethnicity. No one for example would call Obama an African American politician. TFD (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer that question: for French, just consult any dictionary's entry for "Québecois". And concerning English meanings in particular, please note that the designation you quote from wikipedia a French-speaking inhabitant of the Canadian province of Quebec, is not an ethnic descriptor. Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if Quebecois is only a linguistic group, I can't see why we would use it identify Lévesque. Language might not be listed in MOS:ETHNICITY but surely the same principle applies of only mentioning it if it's related to notability. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we clearly should apply it that way. I think part of the problem with the term is that it means different things to different people (sometime different things to the same people). Even our article on Québécois people is self contradicting. The second sentence of the lede reads The term is most often used in reference to descendants of the French settlers in Quebec and people of any ethnicity who live in the province.. Well, which is it? Only people of French Canadian ancestry? Or all people (of any ethnicity or mother tongue) who reside in Quebec? I have always believed that Quebecer means a resident of Quebec, while Québécois only refers to those with French Canadian heritage. When famous Canadian and Quebec/Québécois politician Jacques Parizeau blamed the Quebec independence referendum loss on "money and the ethnic vote", I hardly think he included non-white non-francophones among "Québécois". We also have Québécois language redirecting to Quebec French, which adds another layer of confusion. It just isn't clear what "Québécois" even really means, some seem to be clear it is more than just residence in Quebec and is an ethnicity and culture, while others suggest it is just about language, and further others just a matter of residence. Anyway, it seems a bit cute to suggest that Québécois is only about language given all of this, or that MOS:ETHNICITY thus does not apply.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Kawnhr, it seems to me that the defining aspect of this article is that that Levesque's being Québecois precisely is related to - well, more than related to, pretty much defining of - his notability according to the WP:HQRS. So MOS:ETHNICITY tells us to follow this in the lead.

Darryl Kerrigan, I don't think you have addressed the point that MOS:ETHNICITY tells us to use the context of nationality that is relevant to notability. Most national labels, including Québecois, have multiple significations in different contexts; for example, Fijian can be an indigenous identity or an ethnic identity or a citizenship, depending on the context. That doesn't prevent enwiki articles from using the term Fijian in articles when HQRS use the term. You haven't really given a reason not to follow the sources and the guideline on this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Read MOS:Ethnicity and my comments above. MOS:Ethnicity says we should avoid these sort of ethnic labels in the first sentence of a lede... but that if significantly important to the topic they can be introduced in the second, third etc. We have significant mention of Québecois after the first sentence. We don't need it in the first sentence, and MOS:Ethnicity says it shouldn't be in the first sentence.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY does not seem to say what you think it does. It says The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident. It does not say, "use the passport nationality, not the region or territory". And the section on ethnicity certainly doesn't say that mentions of ethnic or linguistic identities should be deferred to later in the lead; the closest thing to that is the Isaac Asimov example, and if you think the sources support the conceit that the identifier "Jewish" plays the same role in relation to Asimov's claim to notability that "Québecois" plays to Lévesque's, I would suggest that you take a look at the sources again. The guidance you expect to find in MOS:ETHNICITY just isn't there, as far as I can tell.

MOS:ETHNICITY certainly does not say that a term used nearly universally in HQRS should be excluded from the lead sentence because it might be read as an ethnic label, which is the steelman version of your argument as best as I can manage. It actually says, like the other sections of MOS:BIO, to follow the practices of the best sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have a different interpretation of MOS:ETHNICITY and WP:RF than all other editors who have so far participated in the survey above. There is not much more to say.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we define "Québécois" as meaning "French as a first language" or "of French settler descent", I don't see how it's defining of Lévesque's notability. Yes, they were absolutely part of his self-identity, but they also aren't unusual aspects of oneself in Quebec. This isn't a situation like James Gladstone, where his place in the history books is in no small part because he was the first Treaty Indian to be appointed Senator… Lévesque's ethnic and/or linguistic membership is so expected as to be trivial. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Lévesque played as large a role as any single figure in the shift away from "French Canadian" national identity as predominant in Quebec towards the pre-eminence of "Québecois" identity. To say that his membership as Québecois is so expected as to be trivial seems to be a complete misreading of the factual situation, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I would imagine that a national identity would imply the existence of a country or nationality, but there has never been a country nor a nationality of Quebec. When Quebecers mainly identified as French-Canadian, it was with the understanding that they're ethnically French, but Canadian in nationality. The emergence of a more regional instead of ethnic-based identity like Quebec does not negate the nationality aspect - Quebec has already had two referendums on the issue and most of us voted to affirm their Canadian identity. Maybe you didn't, or couldn't vote before you're not a Quebecer, but the fact remains - a regional identity should never be mistaken for nationality. Lévesque's case is no different. TheCelebrinator (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This comment is a great example of why content issues should be decided based on reliable sources and not based on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors. A large number of !voters appear to have arrived at this discussion to opine that "nationality" requires the existence of "a country", but that is simply a personal opinion strongly held by certain editors and does not reflect what the WP:HQRS on the topic of nationality have to say, nor does it reflect what the reliable sources state in the context of specific biographies such as this one.

When it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, MOS:ETHNICITY does not say anything like, "use the nation state rather than the region", it says "use the nation state or the region that aligns with the notability of the subject". A whole lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS !votes pointing to biographies that do lean into Westaphalian passport nationality provide more heat than light, IMO, when they conflict with both P&Gs and HQRS. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Now you are giving a third possible interpretation of "Québecois", which is all the more reason to avoid it. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I can consult any French dictionary, and you won't come back to me later and say, "Oh, no, not that dictionary; it doesn't count."? 184.146.164.157 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• The proposer left out the most common description, Quebec politician or the option of leaving out any description of his regional identity, which is what his Encyclopedia Britannica article does. TFD (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The two options, is what was being basically edit-warred over. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What if most editors don't like either wording? TFD (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect. I rarely know (figuratively) where you're coming from or what you're aiming for. So I doubt I'll be responding to you any further. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

My point is that of the four possible options, you have offered only two. The problem is that many editors may prefer options you have not included. That may require a further RfC to determine whether either of the two options you left out is preferable.

If you don't understand my comments, then you should ask me to clarify them. TFD (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• The descriptions of other politicians, and our opinions about citizenship and nationality, are entirely irrelevant here. How is he described by reliable sources? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, can you please provide a policy or guideline that says that descriptions must be consistent between articles. Where does it say that if an article calls someone a Quebec politician, then all articles about Canadian politicians should refer to their province?

There are countless examples where people are referred to by region rather than nationality. The article on Ghandi for example refers to him as an "indian lawyer" despite the fact he never was a citizen of India. No one refers to George Bernard Shaw, Walter Scott or Dylan Thomas as British writers.

TFD (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

IF you want to go to WP:CANADA's talkpage & make an argument that "Canadian politician" should be removed from the leads of bios of all Canadian politicians who didn't hold federal positions? Then go for it. I'm guessing you won't likely succeed. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

TFD, if Québec ever becomes independent, that argument might hold water. It hasn't, and it doesn't. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay,my argument is that we should follow policy and guidelines and describe Levesque the way most reliable sources do. What does Quebec independence have to do with that? Can you point to any policies or guidelines that support your position? TFD (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I already told you. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve & so won't be engaging with you any further in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

We all understand that this is one of your various arguments. And as we have said numerous times above the issue with this is that most WP:RS about him are for a Canadian audience where calling him a Canadian would be redundant. Unlike these sources we write for an international audience, not a Canadian one. There aren't sources saying he wasn't Canadian, they are just focusing on his Quebec links because those are more important to a Canadian audience that already knows he is Canadian. Again, how many times do we need to note he is of Quebec or is Québécois? This is already covered like six times in the lede. Why do we need a 7th mention of Quebec/Québécois? And why is it somehow unbalanced to note he is Canadian, when we mention EXTENSIVELY his Quebec/Québécois roles, connections etc? You seem to be ignoring this, why?-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

But that is also how he is described in non-Canadian media. TFD (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

G. Timothy Walton, as you are well aware I never made that suggestion and I note that you have avoided answering what policy or guideline you believe supports your position. If there is none just say so. TFD (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

TFD, what policy or guideline supports your position? Don't veer off to media usage where examples can just be cherry-picked to support any side one chooses. Make a good-faith argument or receive nothing other than what you dish out. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (policy): "An article ...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Reliable sources, including those published outside Canada, always give greater prominence to his connection to Quebec, if they mention Canada at all.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography (guideline) says, "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident."

No one questions that Levesque's main reason for fame was his activity to bring about Quebec independence.

Also in MOS/BIO, "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources." Since the description Quebec rather than Canadian is commonly used, the lead should reflect that.

Finally, MOS/BIO says that when nationality is controversial, it is sometimes omitted, as in the case of the astronomer Nicolas Copernicus.

Note, I have not brought up the political debate over the future of Quebec. Our personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant and we should set them aside. TFD (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Repeated chosen chapter and verse, your interpretation disputed by other editors, is not what I meant by "a good-faith argument". Please pProvide some examples of non-Canadian media that explicitly mention nationality of M. Lévesque, including those from outside France that are not translations of Canadian sources. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you think you could avoid comments such as

• Don't veer off to media usage where examples can just be cherry-picked to support any side one chooses. Make a good-faith argument or receive nothing other than what you dish out.
• your interpretation disputed by other editors, is not what I meant by "a good-faith argument".

This is an assumption of bad faith which seriously detracts from the discussion. Furthermore, it is an ad hominem attack, rather than addressing the issue.

But perhaps progress is possible. Do you agree that per policy and guidelines, that the lead should reflect descriptions in non-Canadian sources?

You didn't explain why we should ignore French language sources but I will find English language ones. TFD (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I could not find any reliable sources that described Levesque as a Canadian politician and just one outside Canada that described him as a Quebec politician. However, Google shows that he is often decribed as a Quebec politician and I could find no mention of him as a Canadian poltician.

• "RENE LEVESQUE AND THE DIVIDED HOUSE OF CANADA," William Stockton, New York Times, May 20, 1979. Refers to him as a "Quebec politician"
• "Canada recalls Quebec separatist violence 40 years on," Sian Griffiths, BBC, 16 October 2010. Refers to Pierre Laporte as a Quebec politician.

Most reliable sources describe him as a premier of Quebec or Quebec separatist leader and leave it at that. See The Guardian,[1], Encyclopedia Britannica[2]. TFD (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I specified non-France sources because their government has a history or supporting Québec separatism; I did not specify non–French language sources.

Some reasonably reliable sources that refer to Lévesque as a Canadian politician:

• Scotland and Nationalism: Scottish Society and Politics 1707 to the Present by Christopher T. Harvie
• The Los Angeles Times
• Winnipeg Sun

Easily found even when rejecting out of hand any Google hit that looks at all like it's been plagiarised from Wikipedia. I'm sure I could find a few with search strings in other languages, including French. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You should be more selective in your choices. It's more like cherry-picking than conducting a meaningful overview.

In the first source, Levesque is referred to as a "French Canadian politician." That's similar to calling him a Quebecois or Quebec politician. Is it an acceptable compromise description for you?

The second source reads: "Rene Levesque, the separatist leader elected provincial premier of Quebec in 1976, was the only Canadian politician to rival Trudeau in charisma." If they had used the term Quebec politician it would have changed the meaning, because it means there could be politicians in other provinces that were more charismatic. Sources could for example say that Orban and Meloni were the most right-wing European politicians, but we would not describe them as European politicians in their articles.

The third source is from a Winnipeg, Canada, tabloid that refers to "Canadian politician and premier of Quebec Rene Levesque." Whether or not it is a reliable source (it is modelled on the UK Sun), we already agreed that the vast majority of Canadian sources refer to Levesque as a Quebec politician.

Also, France has an independent media and their policies are not set by the government. And while no doubt some in government may support Quebec independence, that is not the position of its government. TFD (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Now post some of yours. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Please reread my post at 20:41, 9 December 2023. I'll take your reply to mean you have no answer to the issues I raised. TFD (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We have different conclusions as to how your sources are using "Quebec politician". Both are referrring to him in the context of Canadian politics, not international; neither refers to Quebec without also referring to it as part of Canada. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I have read your post and the cited sources; we have drawn different conclusion about how the phrase "Quebec politician" was used. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would you say that Canadian sources were unacceptable because they usually refer to him as a Quebec politician, then present a Canadian source that calls him a Canadian politician? Isn't that cherry-picking? TFD (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You have interpreted my words in a way completely different from my meaning. This is not surprising, given your early equation of France with French language. My vote will stand. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There are not many French language sources we would use other than from Quebec or France to make that distinction material. TFD (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You misinterpreted (deliberately, I suspect) my reference to sources from France to mean any French-language sources. If you ever wonder why you're accused of bad-faith arguments, this is a perfect example. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

G. Timothy Walton, are you suggesting that French (from France) sources are biased in favor of Quebec separarism to a greater degree than Canadian English sources are biased agaisnt Quebec separatism? Or do you sinply treat some biases differently feom others? Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Along with de Gaulle's infamous "Vive le Québec libre!" speech, the French government was (at least) rumoured to be financially supporting the separatist movement. I would expect France to be the country most likely to produce sources that treat Québec as a country. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, ever since Mitterand or so, who was Lévesque's contemporary, France has seemingly adopted a neutral policy towards Quebec seperatism/independence. "Non-interference, non-indifference." De facto, France doesn't really care much for the cause of Quebec separatism anymore. If anything, it's more of a one-sided relationship where the separatists try to court French support (like with the last PQ premier's insistance that the "French elite" only conduct themselves in French) and the French mostly respond with indifference. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself here, but it seems like some of the users here oppose referring to Lévesque as Canadian, which he was, not out of some encyclopedic or pedagogical purpose, but rather out of some ideological or political basis. Wikipedia should never be used as a platform to push your own bias. We should strive to be as neutral as possible. There's a ballot box for that other kind of discourse, but I think we all know too well the results of that. TheCelebrinator 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence for your opinion? My position on this and any other articles is that we should refer to subjects in the same way that most reliable sources do which is what neutral means in Wikipedia. I notice that you have provided no policy or guideline reasons for your position. TFD (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why so many people would seem so keen on especially referring to René Lévesque as a Québécois politician as if that's his nationality. Usually, the kind of people who share such views tend to be Quebec nationalists or separatists. I'm not saying that's what you are TFD, but I think some people would certainly be upset at their main political leader being listed as a citizen of the country he fought to separate from.

Now as to my reasoning, I am basing this purely off of following standard Wikipedia policy, which is to describe the subject using their nationality, which, in this case, is Canadian. A term like "Québécois" would be more of a regional or ethnic (incorrectly might I add) identity, and Wikipedia in fact explicitly discourages such things. My approach is simply to follow consistency and what works for most other Quebecers. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to state something I take to be obvious: I don't think there is a general consensus on enwiki that nationality is to be equated with citizenship. The obvious counter-example is the UK, where the standard practice is to follow sources when they use "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh" for biographies rather than "British" or "UKvian". "Québécois", in the way it is used by the actual sources on this topic, is strictly analagous to "Scottish" in this sense, and the status quo version of this article takes no more of a political stance in referring to Lévesque as Québécois than when articles refer to a Scottish politician as Scottish or a Catalan politician as Catalan. The fact remains that Lévesque's nationality - whether derived from secondary sources or his own statements - was Québécois with just as much certainty as that his citizenship was Canadian. It seems to me that some editors here may be unware of this, but that others seem willing to go to great lengths to obscure the former and promote the latter for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The UK examples do not apply here, as England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are traditionally considered separate countries under a single head of state, a fact reflected in its international sporting competitions; Québec is not treated in such a way outside the Francophonie Games. Spain is a better example; despite the autonomy of its various regions, all are normally treated as a single country internationally. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The UK is pretty much the only real exception to this rule, but I believe that's in part because it's the only English-speaking country that has that kind of dynamic with its nationality(ies). There's even a specific article on that issue that advises Wikipedians that both (national/regional) descriptors are acceptable, depending on the subject.

No such article exists for Canada. There is no officially sanctioned Wikipedia policy, unlike for the UK, that states that either Canadian/ Quebecer may be used, so the example doesn't really apply here. Furthermore, unlike the different UK home nations, Quebec does not have any significant international representation at things like sporting events like G. Timothy Walton said. Nationality is universally acknowledged to mean citizenship, very few exceptions aside. "Quebecer" certainly isn't one. Not even Quebec seperatists would claim that it is one (although they'd certainly like for it to become one...). TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The sole criterion should be what rs do. However, Quebec does differ from other subnational units. First, unlike Scotland but like other units in federations, it has sovereignty, i.e., the federal government cannot abolish it. Second, like all Canadian provinces, but unlike similar units elsewhere in the world, it has an international personality. IOW, it can enter into its own treaties and is not bound by treaties signed by Ottawa.

Like Great Britain in 1707, Canada was formed in 1841 by the union of two separate nations, which continued to retain separate languages, laws and religions, although parliament was merged. In fact, the legislation in both cases was called the Act of Union.

Also, the Canadian Parliament overwhelmingly recognized the Quebecois as a nation.

Also, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized Quebec's right to separate and the UN recognizes its right to self-determination, which is unique among internal rather than overseas territories.

Also, unlike the other provinces, Quebec has never agreed to joining Canada. All the other provinces did so in 1981 when they signed on to the constitution.

Also, Quebec is one of the few territories that have separatist parties capable of winning power. Catalonia and Scotland might be the only other examples.

Finally, Levesque self-identified and was identified as a Quebec politician, rather than a Canadian.

So calling Levesque a Quebec or Quebecois politician or leaving it out entirely does not set any precedent other articles, except possibly for Quebec separatist politicians. TFD (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, you really don't know what you're talking about. Let's go point by point.

Canada may be a federation where provinces have much greater autonomy than other subjurisdictions in the world, but every law enacted by the federal government applies to all of Canada, including Quebec. Quebec cannot just unilaterally decide to 'cancel' certain articles it doesn't like without consent of Parliament. We are a federation, not a confederation.

Canada was not formed in 1841, you are referring to the Province of Canada, which was formed out of the union of two British colonies and still remained a British colony. There was no "Québécois nation" to speak of as by and large, French-Canadians referred to themselves as... French-Canadian, not Québécois, a province which didn't even exist until 1867, the actual year of Canada's formation.

You're anachronistically trying to use present-day concepts to analyze historical facts. It'd be like saying that 'Italy' conquered the Mediterranean 2,000 years ago.

Nation =/ Nationality. The bill itself stated that it was purely symbolic and had no legal status, meaning that it did not 'recognize' any Quebec nationality.

Every province in Canada has the right to separate, not just Quebec. The Surpreme Court did not single out Quebec when it made that decision. There is therefore nothing 'unique' about that. You're again misinterpreting the facts.

That has no bearing on the fact that there has never been any so-called Quebec nationality to speak of.

If I decide to mainly identify as a Montrealer, would that make me any less of a Quebecer or a Canadian? Should we start listing some Montrealers as Canadian, some as Quebecers and others simply as Montrealers? Would that change their nationality (Canadian)? TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please not preface your comments with coments such as "with all due respect, you really don't know what you're talking about." That's very offensive. Mind you, it would have been more impressive if you had been factually accurate in your replies.

I did not say, Quebec can "unilaterally decide to 'cancel' certain articles it doesn't like without consent of Parliament." I said, "the federal government cannot abolish it." The federal government also cannot "unilaterally decide to 'cancel' certain articles it doesn't like without consent of [Quebec's] Parliament." That is the definition of federalism.

Quebec in fact was the name of the French colony that was ceded to Great Britain in 1763. The French speaking people in the colony called themselves Canadiens while the English speaking people called themselves Americans.

If you decide to call yourself a Montrealer, refuse to identify as a Canadian or Quebecer, get elected mayor, get half the French speaking Montrealers to vote for separation, get your right to separate accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada and the UN, etc., then maybe we would call you a Montrealer.

And no, no other provinces have the right to separate. Where did you get that from? Please don't invent facts, because it just lengthens the discussion and the time invested by all of us. TFD (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, your knowledge of Canadian affairs and history is rather limited and superficial. If it wasn't so, I would not have made my observation.

Quebec, just like all the other Canadian provinces, is explicitly mentioned and defined in the Constitution, with the stipulation that any modification to a province's territory has to be done with both the province's and the federal government's consent. Now, obviously, no province would consent to being abolished. But that goes for every province. A bit like the 50 States down south. Does that make them sovereign?

If Parliament passes a law, then it's the law of the land, regardless of whether you're in Victoria, B.C. or Quebec City. Ottawa has its jurisdiction, the provinces their own, but Ottawa's jurisdiction covers all of Canada. Provinces are bound to follow the law, that's why they're provinces.

Quebec was in fact the name of the province the British created after they had annexed what was left of New France, or the French colony of Canada to be precise. By the way, that province comprised much of what is now Ontario, Ohio, etc., so it's not exactly a predecessor to the modern province of Quebec. You yourself acknowledge the French-speaking people there called themselves Canadiens, not Québécois. That's because, and maybe if you were a Quebecer you would know this, French Canadians (in Quebec) only started using the term "Québécois" as a marker of identity towards the 1960s.

I didn't invent anything, I simply took the words of the court of the government. The government asked the Court if unilateral secession was legal; the Supreme Court said no. The government then passed a law (the Clarity Act) that established the conditions under which it would negotiate with a province that would want to secede, not just Quebec. So hypothetically, even a province like Ontario could secede under the Act. Obviously just an hypothetical, but my point is that every province can theoretically secede.

And that's why I said that your knowledge of Canada is rather limited and superficial. If you were informed, you would have read about the Clarity Act and its application to all provinces, you would have known that Quebec was the name of the colony Britain created, not took, from New France. That Canada was formed in 1867, not 1841. In all those cases, you had a kernel of the truth, but you ended up being wrong because of how rudimentary your knowledge is. TheCelebrinator (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to present your arguements without ad hominem attackss? "Your knowledge is rather limited and superficial" is not a persuasive arguement and frankly offensive

Quebec predates Canada, has its own national identity and the right to self-determination recognized under Canadian and international law, something that does not apply to any other province. I appreciate that Canadian federalists disagree, and am not saying they are wrong, I am just saying what the consensus of expert opinion is.

Of course Parliament has the power to determine under what conditions the government will negotiate secession with provinces. However, it cannot unilterally determine the conditions under which provinces can leave the country.

What's important is how Quebec is perceived in reliable sources. It doesn't matter if the experts are wrong (they often are). Our opinions on Quebec separatism are irrelevant to how Levesque is described.

TFD (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have never resorted to any type of personal attacks, why should I do that when your arguments are enough by themselves to discredit your viewpoint? I never attack the person, only the idea. Now to further prove my point...

Quebec does not predate Canada anymore than Boston predates America or Berlin predates Germany. The existence of a modern province of Quebec, with its modern territories, with its modern constitution such as a Parliament and whatnot, is the invention of Canada. Before 1867, there was no such thing as the Province of Quebec as we know it today, which brings me to my next point.

Quebec nationalism is a very recent phenomenon. Prior to the 1960s, no one, or very few, in Quebec spoke of a Quebec nation, a Quebec people, a Quebec land. They were French-Canadian nationalists, which included the Acadians, Franco-Ontarians, etc. Quebec was understood to be a province of Canada, not a nation. Of course, then came the separatists who tried to reappropriate Quebec as a national identity, but that came much later.

No province in Canada can unilaterally secede from Ottawa. Their independence would have to be acknowledged by the federal government, via negotiation. Every part of the Earth is entitled to the right to self-determination, including Quebec, but also every other Canadian province. It was just that the only active separatist movement was (is?) in Quebec, so the UN and Supreme Court documents you refer to only spoke of Quebec, as that was the only relevant example, but that doesn't mean no other province couldn't do the exact same thing the PQ tried to do here.

At any rate, I think we both digress. Lévesque was born in Canada, lived in Canada and died in Canada. There is no standard policy on WP:Canada that states that Quebecers are to be treated differently when it comes to nationality. If you think they should, go make your case there for all Quebecers. Otherwise, let's just stick to what is conventional policy.

User:TheCelebrinator 2:38, December 18, 2023 (UTC)

legal and historical digression

TheCelebrinator's comment is somewhat misleading, in that the prior comment it is defending contains a number of unsourced or incorrect statements: every law enacted by the federal government applies to all of Canada, including Quebec. Quebec cannot just unilaterally decide to 'cancel' certain articles it doesn't like without consent of Parliament - both parts of this statement are false, because a federal law can be challenged as ultra vires and a provincial law can override provisions of the (essentially federal) Charter. Unlike the UK, Canada is fully constitutionally federal, and like the UK but unlike, say, Germany, Canadian federalism is an asymmetrical one in which Quebec exercises more powers (and has more rights under international law) than other provinces. TC's more recent assertion that Provinces are bound to follow the law, that's why they're provinces is simply a misstatement of how Canadian federalism works. Nation (does not equal) Nationality is fully misleading, and is not based on what reliable sources state on the topic. If what you are in fact saying is that not all nations have an associated Westaphalian state, this is of course true, but you are then assuming precisely the thing that needs to be demonstrated. Similarly, your doubling-down statement that there has never been any so-called Quebec nationality to speak of is a misunderstanding of what nationality, nationalism, and nations are according to WP:HQRS. As to every province in Canada has the right to separate, not just Quebec - the Supreme Court of Canada did not rule about provinces other than Quebec, and what is more, the Supreme Court of Canada has not erased Quebec's national claims under international law any more than UK or Spanish courts have erased the claims of Scotland or Catalonia under international law. Certainly the claim that, say, Alberta has a right to separate from Canada is, ahem, unproven and to assert this based only on the wording of the Clarity Act seems bizarre to me. More generally, to assert that nations only exist in some subset of the cases where they are recognized in the domestic law of countries where their co-nationals reside seems EXTRAORDINARY and not a claim to accept without evidence.

Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Would be very interesting to see you bring your arguments for Quebec special treatment, to WP:CANADA, not to mention the Canada & Quebec pages themselves. I doubt many will agree that Quebec is somehow above the nine other provinces. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, personally, as a Quebecer, I don't see why we should start separating Quebecers from other Canadians when it comes to nationality when virtually every other article on other Quebecers (like François Legault, Maurice Richard, Céline Dion, etc.) lists them as Canadian, but I'm sure we ought to let the other Quebecers here in the thread have a say. TheCelebrinator (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, changing Dion's intro to "Quebecois singer" or Lanny McDonald's intro to "Albertan former professional ice hockey player..." wouldn't likely be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If we used the principle that met with consensus in the 2018 Spain RfC, to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most, I don't think any of the articles mentioned would change and the status quo lead of this article would be maintained. I'm not sure why editors are objecting to adopting this principle consistently, since it had already met with consensus at a high WP:CONLEVEL. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What relevance is your self-identification as a Quebecer to this discussion? TFD (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, in a discussion about Quebec's identity and how it relates to Canada, I'm sure my opinion as a Quebecer would count just as much if not more than a non-Quebecer's, but what would I know of Quebec aside from living there for as long as I can remember... TheCelebrinator (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, I neither stated nor implied that Quebec is somehow above the nine other provinces. But if you think that Asymmetrical federalism is not a real thing, or that it does not pertain to Canada, your conflict is with the HQRS on the topic and not with me as an editor. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

None of your arguments have convinced me to change my position on this content dispute. You'll have to convince the others who have & will give input into the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Note - WP:CANADA & all the provincial & territorial WikiProjects, have been notified of this RFC taking place. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I regard the notification of addional WikiProjects aside from Canada and Quebec as a form of canvassing, albeit probably not one of any consequence. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The other WikiProjects were notified, as I presumed you forgot to notify them. Anyways, all of them (except Canada) are either inactive or semi-inactive. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, Okay. As noted above, I placed a notice on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government as this article is within that project. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I haven't put a notice on WikiProject Journalism as I expect no one there cares, but welcome someone to do so if they think it would help.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Closing

When the RFC tag expires in three weeks. I'll contact Wikipedia:Closure requests, to close the RFC with a decision. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess that might be the right way to go. While it is not a !VOTE, we are currently at 11 (or 12 with Dobblestein) for A and 1 for B, with one editor calling for both A&B. This might not be WP:SNOW, but if the mood remains the same in a week or two, I would not be opposed to listing it early and leaving it to the closer to decide when the discussion has run its course.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of closing these early, having seen how that can make a bad situation worse. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there will be much support for "Québécois politician." According to Merriam-Webster, it meaans "a native or inhabitant of Quebec...specifically: a French-speaking native or inhabitant of Quebec."[3] While technically it can include non-French speaking Quebecers, most readers would not interpret it that way, As such, it goes against guidelines.

As I mentioned, the RfC leaves out two other options: "Quebec politician" and omitting it altogether. I suggest therefore that we close the current RfC and start a new one with all four options. Or we can wait until this RfC is closed and begin it then.

Regarding early closing, it's usually a bad idea because followers of the discussion will tend to answer first and uninvolved editors later. I have seen RfCs where there was overwhelming support for one side intially, but little subsequently.

TFD (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I noted the opposite with the inclusion of the PPC in the 2021 federal election infobox – editors who'd never been involved with the page swarmed in early, voted to include the party, then departed without ever editing again. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You and I were two of the first four editors to vote. What was unusual was that none of the editors who wanted to exclude the PPC from the into-box bothered to vote.

My position was that because all mainstream media included all six parties in their info-boxes, so should the article. So I got accused of being pro-PPC in that article and am being accused of being pro-PQ here.

It's best to leave our opinions at the door and present information as it appears in mainstream sources, even if those sources have biases with which we may disagree. At least mainstream sources provide a standard we can use, even if it is not always correct. Otherwise we waste time in discussions such as this one. Furthermore, readers expect a summary of stories reported in reliable sources, with their biases, rather than an interpretation by Wikpedia editors.

I sometimes disagree with mainstream presentation of stories. But this is not the place to correct them. If we did that, overall credibility would suffer, as it has in Conservapedia. TFD (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Our recollections differ. The editors opposed to including the PPC mostly did not have time to vote before the RFC was closed, it was so quickly done. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Six of the first eight replies came from editors who had participated in the discussion. Of the final twelve replies, only two were from accounts that had edited the talk page or main article.

I suspect there was outside canvassing of PPC. It was the day after the election.

Ironically, some editors accused me of having a pro-PPC bias when my argument was basically the same as my one here: that articles should reflect how topics are covered in rs. In that case, I argued that because every major media source covering the election six parties in their summaries, so should the article.

TFD (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

In three weeks, I'll be requesting closure. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe it's obvious by now that the A's have it if the voting is any indication. Some editors are still busy rehashing their old grievances about Quebec separatism and nationalism, but when it comes to the matter at hand, a clear majority supports the nationality change. Therefore, I believe the RFC can be closed before the 3-week deadline, perhaps even now.

Best to let it run its 4-week course. Otherwise, we'd have complaints that it was closed too early. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.